Thomas Suddes commentary: Voters should know more about judicial candidates

Sunday

May 4, 2014 at 12:01 AMMay 4, 2014 at 5:40 PM

Because of how Ohio elects judges, voters - due to lack of information, plus a long ballot - have often as not followed the Hruska Principle.

Because of how Ohio elects judges, voters — due to lack of information, plus a long ballot — have often as not followed the Hruska Principle.

Republican Roman Hruska was a U.S. senator from Nebraska. In 1970, President Richard M. Nixon nominated a Florida Republican, G. Harrold Carswell, for a U.S. Supreme Court seat. The Senate rejected him. Carswell was qualified for the court, in that, yes, he was breathing, and yes, he was a lawyer. Beyond that, Carswell was one of the most ill-equipped people ever nominated to the nation’s highest court.

Sen. Hruska thought otherwise: “Even if (Carswell) were mediocre,” Hruska said, “there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can’t have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos.” Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter and Benjamin Cardozo are regarded as among the most eminent justices ever to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

It’s a far piece from Nebraska to Ohio’s county seats or the Ohio Supreme Court’s Columbus bench, but voters in the Buckeye State have, de facto, sometimes acted a la Roman Hruska. That’s likely no one’s intention. But voters have, or get, scanty information on judicial candidates. And in the most populous counties, there are so many judgeships on the ballot every election, only the most determined Ohio voter can possibly brief him- or herself beforehand about who might be a Brandeis or a Carswell, or who might be conservative, moderate or liberal.

The reason for the philosophical blind spot: For more than 100 years, Ohioans have nominated most judicial candidates in primary elections, with party labels. Then, those candidates appear on November’s ballot without party labels. And like it or not, party labels do give voters at least a hint as to a judge’s, or potential judge’s, leanings. Were that not so, Barack Obama would be appointing lots of Republicans to the federal bench, and George W. Bush would have appointed lots of Democrats.

Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor of the Ohio Supreme Court, a Cleveland-area Republican, is suggesting some reasonable, incremental reforms that could better empower Ohio voters when they pick judges. She’s not calling for party labels or longer terms; she’s calling for practical, do-able things.

Some of what O’Connor proposes would require amending the Ohio Constitution. Other parts would require amending state law. She’s calling for:

• Holding all judicial elections in odd-numbered years and placing judicial candidates at the top of the ballot. Most now run at the bottom of a crammed gubernatorial or presidential ballot.

• Creating a nonpartisan voter-information program. According to an executive summary of O’C onnor’s plan, the program will launch in 2015 “without the appropriation of tax dollars by combining the existing resources of three critical partners: the Ohio State Bar Association, the League of Women Voters of Ohio, and the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron.” The venture will create a website providing “quality information about judicial candidates at every level.”

• Tightening experience requirements for judge candidates. It’s now six years of legal practice for all judgeships. O’Connor wants to set it at eight years for Common Pleas candidates; 10 years for Courts of Appeals candidates; and 12 years for Supreme Court candidates.

O’Connor’s plan is reasonable and pragmatic and would give voters important information. True, in the larger scheme of things, what the chief justice wants to do would be baby steps, not strides. But incremental change is what Ohio does best.

Thomas Suddes is a former legislative reporter with The Plain Dealer in Cleveland and writes from Ohio University.